Devlal v. Collector Bilaspur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 151 of 2020 Devlal S/o Manraj Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Magurda, Tahsil And Police Station- Marwahi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector Bilaspur Police Station- Citi Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur Through Its Manager, Address- M.M. Silwar Plaza, 205 Second Floor, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Mahavir Nagar Ring Road No. 1 Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For State :

Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Mr. Ayaz Naved, G.A.

Mr. Ishan Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15/01/2020

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to pay the Crop Insurance to the petitioner under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.

2. It appears that the petitioner on an earlier occasion along with a group of the persons had filed a writ petition i.e. WPC No. 2695/2018, which stood disposed of on 01.10.2018, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and settle the same. Subsequently, on account of non-compliance a contempt petition was filed arising of the said writ petition i.e. CONT No. 591/2019. The contempt petition also stood disposed of on 22.08.2019 on the statement made by the respondents/State authorities that the payments have been made to a major portion of the persons and a few of the

persons have been not paid as they were not eligible. The contempt Court had reserved the rights of those persons to avail appropriate remedy open to them.

3. The petitioner now has filed the present writ petition stating that he has not been informed as to why he is not entitled for the insurance amount in respect of their respective crops and the petitioner has also approached the authorities in this regard, who have also not informed them in respect of the same.

4. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner approach the respondent No.1 on making a detailed representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the respondent No.1 shall consider the representation and on due verification of the facts, if it has till date not been done, send a report to the respondent No.2 for further action and the respondent No.2 also shall take appropriate steps at the earliest in accordance with the report of the respondent No.1. In case if the petitioner is not entitled for the same, let the respondent No.1 after verification of facts intimate the petitioner the reason for not being entitled.

5. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation to be made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved